other ombudsman decisions of importance to the rights of persons deprived of their liberty 49 outside the premises. The Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that decisions concerning restrictions must be issued in writing by a prosecutor in relation to each individual inmate. This had not taken place. It is thus not possible to take action against all inmates in the way that had taken place. The absence of a prosecutor’s decision had in practice entailed the remand prison making a decision to impose restrictions on the inmates. A remand prison has no such right.6 Information for relatives When someone has been deprived of liberty, there is a basic premise that relatives are to be informed. Provisions on this are found in Chapter 24, Section 21a of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, Section 17a of the Swedish Police Act and Section 3 of the Ordinance on Detention. The provision in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure includes apprehended and arrested persons, and the provision in the Ordinance on Detention concerns, among others, people who have been taken into custody due to intoxication. On several occasions, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has criticised the police for shortcomings in matters relating to informing relatives.7 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has stated that it is the police service’s responsibility to take the initiative in providing information and offering persons who have been taken into custody the opportunity to contact relatives. If order and security reasons prevent this, persons who have been taken into custody are to be asked if they instead want the police to inform their relatives. Issues concerning information for relatives are also to be documented. Access to defence counsel The Parliamentary Ombudsman has criticised the police for not having allowed persons deprived of their liberty to exercise their statutory right to speak in private with their defence counsel. In one decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasised that it is the nature of things that a police cell, or similar premises where persons who are under arrest or on remand are held, must have spaces or devices to ensure that the rights of persons deprived of their liberty can be maintained in this respect. In this decision, there was criticism of the procedure whereby the door to the interview room is kept open during the telephone conversation, with a cell guard standing outside, who is able to hear the conversation. The was not considered to be compatible with applicable law. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the security and restriction aspects should have been addressed in a different way.8 In another 6 Ref. no. 5528-2012 7 JO 2012/13 p. 165, ref. no. 3682- 2011 concerned an arrested person and JO 2013/14 p. 222, ref. no. 2293-2012 concerned the care of an intoxicated person. 8 Ref. no. 3551-2011 CPT recommendation The CPT has recommended that Sweden take steps to ensure that juveniles deprived of their liberty are not subjected to police questioning without the benefit of a trusted person and/or a lawyer being present steps to be taken to ensure that juveniles deprived of their liberty are not subjected to police questioning without the benefit of a trusted person and/or a lawyer being present